BALBIR SINGH KHAROUD,PATIALA,PUNJAB vs. ITO. WARD-4, PATIALA, PUNJAB
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's lack of familiarity with tax matters and engagement of a new counsel. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to present their case.
What were the facts?
The assessee's case was reopened due to significant cash deposits in their bank account. The Assessing Officer treated a large portion of these cash deposits as unexplained income. The assessee remained unrepresented before the lower authorities.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to prove the nature of cash deposits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 69,Section 142(1),Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
आदेश/Order PER RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, J.M: The present appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dt. 15.9.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [CIT(A)] in the matter of an assessment as framed by Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 147 / 144 of the Act on 17.12.2019. The registry has noted delay of 928 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the ground that the assessee was not well versed with legal and income tax
2 1592/Chd/2026 matters. The assessee engaged a professional counsel for handing of income tax proceedings and compliance to the notices. The impugned order was sent only on email at sachdeva304@gamil.com which belonged to the previous counsel and not to the appellant which led to delay in the appeal. It has been stated that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. On merits, Ld. AR sought remand back of the matter which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee has remained unrepresented before lower authorities and it is in a position to substantiate its case.
We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the contention of the applicant for condonation of delay as well as affidavit filed by the Assessee. We find that a reasonable cause has been demonstrated by the assessee and the delay is, therefore, condoned. We proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. from case records, it emerges that assessee’s case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act on the information received from DDIT (Inv.), Patiala that the assessee had bank deposit of Rs. 2,20,03,518/- out of which Rs. 1,74,24,950/- was deposited in cash. During the assessment proceedings, various notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time to the Assessee but no reply was received from the Assessee. Accordingly, the cash deposit of Rs. 1,74,24,950/-
3 1592/Chd/2026 was treated as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act and added to the income of the assessee while framing the assessment. The position remained the same during first appeal and accordingly, the assessment was confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
The Ld. AR stated that the assessee is an agriculturist and also engaged in the business of sale and purchase of agricultural land. The deposits were advance money received from the purchaser of the land for sale of land on behalf of the seller.
Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, we accept the prayer of Ld. AR we set aside the impugned order and direct Ld. AO to frame de novo assessment with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. The same would be at a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) which would be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Poor Patient Welfare Fund’ maintained by PGIMER, Chandigarh. The proof of the same would be furnished to Ld. AO who would proceed accordingly.
4 1592/Chd/2026
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10.08.2026. - - (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER rkk
आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant
""थ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"/ CIT 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च"ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड" फाईल/ Guard File
सहायक पंजीकार/
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026
